Love vs Tyranny

I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think Jesus taught about an "other" or "separate" god, but a god that includes everyone and
everything. Those who killed him are the ones who changed his message to an "other" or "separate" god after his death.

John 10
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word
of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then
do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Worship is a construct for obedience, in my opinion. It's a control mechanism that uses awe and fear of the unknown to regulate the behavior of
those that TPTB are trying to keep "civilized" and trained to do what they're told.

I really don't know if Jesus, the man, asked to be worshiped, or required it in any way, but if he did, I would find that a highly questionable
attribute of a spiritual leader.

Psalms 82
God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.[a]
2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.”

In my opinion, we have the highest GOD admonishing the "Sons of God", as mentioned in Deut. 32:8 DSS, for living up to their mandate to care for the
weakest members of humanity. Their fate, according to the Most High, is that should die like men.

Was Jesus an incarnate 'Son of God" here to live as a human and die as a human, in order to pay for his crimes against humanity? Did he have to make
amends for the tyranny of Yahweh?

Originally posted by windword
Jesus introduced a concept of God to the average Hebrew that was revolutionary, and gave the individual a path to inner revelation through a spiritual
communion with the God that resided within us all, replacing the priest's role, as the intermediary to a "separated" God's mercy. He taught that by
reflecting the inner God to the outside, mundane world, we are bringing God's kingdom to Earth.

Does such communion have any vestige of "otherness" left over or did Jesus teach that ultimately everyone is inherently non-separate in the
indivisibility of God? As you know, I argue that Jesus taught the latter given various statements attributed to him, similar descriptions in the Bible
of esoteric experiences when compared to other traditions, etc. - what do you think?

Originally posted by windword
More subtly, and for the more intellectual student, he taught that the outside and the inside should be one in the same.

That's an interesting way of putting this. Yes, given that the body-mind does not actually "contain" God (how could it?) but arises in the
Indivisible, the distinction between inner and outer necessarily disappears when communing with Reality Itself becomes more profound.

Originally posted by windword
So, to answer your question, I hope, No, I don't believe that Jesus taught of a God that is separate and needs to be found through outside sources or
actions, such as animal sacrifice.

Do you think many Christians prefer to be let off the hook given what such communion or non-separation ultimately implies - real responsibility in all
aspects of life with no intermediary between them and the Divine? In other words, one is directly "accountable" to God given one's non-separation.

It does seem to me that the more people objectify God as the Great and Separate Other/Creator-God, the more problems arise as pointed out in the op,
and that you are pointing out in terms of a "surrogate" or "substituion" approach via intermediaries to God in the past. This is still the case today
through presumptions of being separate, unworthy of love, not inherently free, offering up empty ceremonial gestures, corrupt so-called "religious"
leaders, etc., etc., rather than transforming all of that charade with real communion with the Absolute. Such ceremonies, etc., are only full and
expressive of God-communion if they are already founded in the Divine; they do not in and of themselves lead to the Divine, but can certainly provide
the means for invoking and celebrating the Divine..

And finally, do you think that more and more Christians are returning to these esoteric roots of Jesus' teachings regarding the real practice of
turning the whole body-mind to the Divine in non-separate love-communion? I personally think this is all that will really "save" Christianity.

Why is worship necessary at all? Why is veneration not enough? Respect, even? Why do we have to worship anything?

Worship or devotion is only
true if there is first recognition of the Divine as the non-separate Indivisible Reality. Then the body-mind spontaneously worships. This is true
unstoppable devotional love-bliss (our essential being) coming to the "front" and animating the body-mind.

Without that recognition of the Divine, it is only conventional worship, based in fear and the desire to relieve that fear - e.g., by "purchasing" a
ticket to heaven by paying one's dues, etc., etc. The endless false forms of such contrived worship are man-made revisions of true devotion/worship,
and as such are all based in assuming God as the Great Other, and everyone else as separate as well.

Worship or devotion is only true if there is first recognition of the Divine as the non-separate Indivisible Reality. Then the body-mind
spontaneously worships. This is true unstoppable devotional love-bliss (our essential being) coming to the "front" and animating the body-mind.

If something is responsible for your creation, and indeed would take pride in your birth, surely the greatest method for respecting its role in your
existence is by making sure its effort and time were not wasted. However you believe you are best served in living a fulfilling life, use that.
Panting after the coattails of the prince does not convince him that you'll make a good and worthy knight when he becomes king. It says that you suck
up to the highest bidder, and that you are no more intelligent or insightful than a dog.

If I were a king, and I wanted people to do something for me, I would choose the assertive, insightful folk. I want someone who is capable of forming
their own ideas, making their own decisions, and following their own spark of passion. I want someone who can figure out what to do and how to do it.
Surprise me. Make something happen. You don't need my approval to make life easier for your community.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If something is responsible for your creation, and indeed would take pride in your birth, surely the greatest method for respecting its role in your
existence is by making sure its effort and time were not wasted. However you believe you are best served in living a fulfilling life, use that.
Panting after the coattails of the prince does not convince him that you'll make a good and worthy knight when he becomes king. It says that you suck
up to the highest bidder, and that you are no more intelligent or insightful than a dog.

In this example you are still assuming that Reality is separate from all and is the Creator-God of all. This is a mind-based presumption that is
unreal and is founded in the same presumption that the "I" is actually a separate entity.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If I were a king, and I wanted people to do something for me, I would choose the assertive, insightful folk. I want someone who is capable of forming
their own ideas, making their own decisions, and following their own spark of passion. I want someone who can figure out what to do and how to do it.
Surprise me. Make something happen. You don't need my approval to make life easier for your community.

Again, a king and his subjects are not the same as the Unconditional Divine and all arising as modification of the Indivisible Light of God.
Your comparison only holds up to extent that the Divine is assumed as an objective "Other" - and, yes, in that context, it makes good sense. But
examine whether the basis for your argument is actually true.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
But is that what we hear from "God"? No.

So you have been talking to God? I knew it!

Seriously, we actually do hear a different argument from the scriptures associated with Jesus, as well as various other spiritual traditions - i.e.,
that God is not the Great Other/All-Powerful Creator..

In this example you are still assuming that Reality is separate from all and is the Creator-God of all. This is a mind-based presumption that
is unreal and is founded in the same presumption that the "I" is actually a separate entity.

For the last time, that's not the discussion taking place here. There's a particular theme I am taking contention with, and you are treating my
discussion of it as support for it. Your ideas are irrelevant to the point I am making. We're not arguing the validity of new age concepts, we are
questioning the validity of the "God is love" theory.

Thank you.

Seriously, we actually do hear a different argument from the scriptures associated with Jesus, as well as various other spiritual traditions -
i.e., that God is not the Great Other/All-Powerful Creator..

And yet, popular belief does not reflect that. And it is popular belief I am questioning, not your beliefs.

Does such communion have any vestige of "otherness" left over or did Jesus teach that ultimately everyone is inherently non-separate in the
indivisibility of God? As you know, I argue that Jesus taught the latter given various statements attributed to him, similar descriptions in the Bible
of esoteric experiences when compared to other traditions, etc. - what do you think?

It shouldn't.

What I think Jesus meant or actually thought is only my projection, I suppose. So, all we can really critique is what's in the Bible. There are many
instances throughout the Gospels of Jesus reinforcing a separation of the "godly" and "ungodly." So, I would agree that Jesus taught, in the
scriptures, what does seem to promote division. This is why I speculate that the Biblical character of Jesus may be a combination of Hebrew leaders
at the time. A sort of "all things to all people" sort of figure.

Do you think many Christians prefer to be let off the hook given what such communion or non-separation ultimately implies - real responsibility in all
aspects of life with no intermediary between them and the Divine? In other words, one is directly "accountable" to God given one's non-separation.

LOL. Don't get me started.

The ole, "Jesus died for my sins. Jesus is going to come and fix things, so I can sit on my hands" schtick.

I can only speak for myself, and I say, "No one can be any harsher judge of me, than me," and "Me forgiving me is the most important part of
'salvation.'"

And finally, do you think that more and more Christians are returning to these esoteric roots of Jesus' teachings regarding the real practice of
turning the whole body-mind to the Divine in non-separate love-communion? I personally think this is all that will really "save" Christianity.

I grew up in a Pentecostal, Holy Roller" church in the 1960's, where they preached about the "great outpouring". Then came the '70, my coming of age
and '___'.

I would dare to say that people of all religions, and of no religion, are returning to these "esoteric roots." Unfortunately, many are clinging to
their guns and bibles too.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
And yet, popular belief does not reflect that. And it is popular belief I am questioning, not your beliefs.

Fair enough, but several of us
posting on this thread now are making very relevant points that Jesus did not simply support the Old Testament's God as Other presumption - the basis
on which your entire argument rests. People choose to believe as they do, but if Jesus actually taught something different from what is popularly
believed, isn't that relevant to this thread?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
For the last time, that's not the discussion taking place here. There's a particular theme I am taking contention with, and you are treating my
discussion of it as support for it. Your ideas are irrelevant to the point I am making. We're not arguing the validity of new age concepts, we are
questioning the validity of the "God is love" theory.

You made your statements, that I was just addressing, relative to my post about true worship. Now you don't want to continue that line of discussion,
which is fine by me. But are you only looking to drive your point home about conventional religion? Or are you also wanting to consider something that
allows your points to be made, but further discusses whether your premise is actually true in Reality and/or true relative to Jesus' teachings?

After 20+ pages on your op, isn't this a worthwhile consideration given it is actually still on topic? Might you also not learn something more, as we
all probably have, from your thread? If this is not to your liking, I am happy to play elsewhere if you prefer.

Originally posted by windword
There are many instances throughout the Gospels of Jesus reinforcing a separation of the "godly" and "ungodly." So, I would agree that Jesus
taught, in the scriptures, what does seem to promote division. This is why I speculate that the Biblical character of Jesus may be a combination of
Hebrew leaders at the time. A sort of "all things to all people" sort of figure.

I can see your points, but in terms of Jesus' teachings relative to the Light above, the descent of the Holy Spirit, his oneness with the
Divine and non-separation of everyone - these are ancient esoteric matters that at the time could not just be read about in the neighborhood friendly
bookstore! My sense is that the man of Jesus did actually teach many his commandments relative to living properly through love, and also initiated his
closest most prepared followers in the secret esoteric matters.

So yes, it makes sense that the Bible is potentially a very mixed bag of writers - all with varying degrees of spiritual understanding.

Originally posted by windword
LOL. Don't get me started.

The ole, "Jesus died for my sins. Jesus is going to come and fix things, so I can sit on my hands" schtick.

Yeah, I guess it was a silly question of mine on the one hand, but I also sense more and more people are looking for something deeper, even
within their Christian world.

Originally posted by windword
I grew up in a Pentecostal, Holy Roller" church in the 1960's, where they preached about the "great outpouring". Then came the '70, my coming of
age and '___'.

Holy Rollers always looked like they were having lots of fun at church!

Yeah, I read your post about your coming of age and your disillusionment with the inner workings of the church at the time.

Who needs proof? He was an Essene true and tried, because of this and his open distain for the Saduccee and Pharasee (representing the monied, and the
warped oral tradition of the Torah) died. No one on his team Essene there to represent him not even his recalcitrant FRATERS for a reason). Can you
not devine this, what is the problem in your refusal to know the truth, all you have to do is ask your higher being (yourself) and trust its infinite
wisdom. Its all there right in front of your eyes.

That's exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread. Jesus was an Essene. His mission encompassed the restoration of the true Torah. The
Essenes taught that the Torah was corrupted by the wicked and evil Hebrew priests.

If you follow my postings in this thread, you'll see I've been defending this argument for 15+ pages!

Fair enough, but several of us posting on this thread now are making very relevant points that Jesus did not simply support the Old
Testament's God as Other presumption - the basis on which your entire argument rests. People choose to believe as they do, but if Jesus actually
taught something different from what is popularly believed, isn't that relevant to this thread?

If you can prove it.

Fair enough, but several of us posting on this thread now are making very relevant points that Jesus did not simply support the Old
Testament's God as Other presumption - the basis on which your entire argument rests. People choose to believe as they do, but if Jesus actually
taught something different from what is popularly believed, isn't that relevant to this thread?

Prove to AfterInfinity that Jesus' teachings are not about assuming "God as the Great Other" - and do so without posting on this thread anything that
criticizes the op's basic proposition that the Bible is completely based on the "God as the Great Other" presumption - but also, somehow never go off
this topic with any such potential evidence. Hmmm, a very tricky conundrum indeed...

Aha! It's a koan! I wonder if AI is a Zen Master of some sort, sent here to befuddle the mind into realizing what is prior to it?

Prove to AfterInfinity that Jesus' teachings are not about assuming "God as the Great Other" - and do so without posting on this thread
anything that criticizes the op's basic proposition that the Bible is completely based on the "God as the Great Other" presumption - but also, somehow
never go off this topic with any such potential evidence. Hmmm, a very tricky conundrum indeed...

Aha! It's a koan! I wonder if AI is a Zen Master of some sort, sent here to befuddle the mind into realizing what is prior to it?

It's not as difficult as you make it sound. My premise questions the benevolent nature of the bargain we have been coerced into accepting, while you
suggest that perhaps the benevolent nature of the bargain comes from the fact that the traditional overview is a sham. Hence, the new age perspective.
My response is that my premise doesn't assume the traditional overview is a shame, but asks followers to defend its validity.

So far, you seem to be avoiding providing any actual sources for your claims. I'd say that's the cause of your little conundrum - a reluctance to
substantiate your claims. If you want to argue with my examination of the traditional view by using your esoteric ideals, create a thread about it
because there's nothing esoteric about this discussion.

To put it simply, I am questioning the nature of the Judaic god. Your solution is to remove the Judaic god from the equation and substitute it with
your own version. If I were to consider your version, I would have to completely disregard the entire context for my question, because your ideas
violate everything in the Bible.

Unless, of course, you can prove that it is in the Bible. Is that too much to ask?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
It's not as difficult as you make it sound.

Uhhh, you gave the impression that I should not post anything contrary to your op when you said "Your ideas are irrelevant to the point I am
making." You keep wanting to categorize what several of us have been posting as new age concepts, and even when I mentioned various quotes attributed
to Jesus, you said you didn't care what the quotes said. (You can also see the last few posts on the "God loves me" thread in case you don't recall
this.)

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
My premise questions the benevolent nature of the bargain we have been coerced into accepting, while you suggest that perhaps the benevolent nature of
the bargain comes from the fact that the traditional overview is a sham. Hence, the new age perspective. My response is that my premise doesn't assume
the traditional overview is a shame, but asks followers to defend its validity.

You keep insisting that I am putting forth some new age perspective in order for you to discount what myself and others have been posting
here. I have been supporting these arguments with scriptural quotes, and then you discount those and say, well, popular belief is assuming the God as
Other presumption - and yes, this is true, but this is NOT to say this is what Jesus was actually teaching.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So far, you seem to be avoiding providing any actual sources for your claims. I'd say that's the cause of your little conundrum - a reluctance to
substantiate your claims.

Hahahaha! Given you already disregarded my quoting from the Bible, this makes it a bit more difficult! A koan, indeed! Good one, zen master
AI!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If you want to argue with my examination of the traditional view by using your esoteric ideals, create a thread about it because there's nothing
esoteric about this discussion.

So now you are eliminating from this discussion much of what Jesus actually spoke about. Okay, now I see why you don't like the quotes I put
forth my argument with. Basically, it is sounding more and more that you are only interested in the God of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
To put it simply, I am questioning the nature of the Judaic god. Your solution is to remove the Judaic god from the equation and substitute it with
your own version. If I were to consider your version, I would have to completely disregard the entire context for my question,

Again, this sounds like only the God of the Old Testament, not what Jesus was putting forward.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
...because your ideas violate everything in the Bible.

LOL! After all this discussion, this is your summary?!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Unless, of course, you can prove that it is in the Bible. Is that too much to ask?

I already tried this with various quotes from the Bible, which you don't want to hear about - so that approach is out. What would it take in
your case - Jesus appearing to you and speaking directly to you or even perhaps his blessing transmission of the Holy Ghost to the point that you are
moved into the indivisible Light of Non-Separation above the body-mind?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.